Limitation and valid demand notice service blocked admission of a section 9 insolvency petition under the Code.

An application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was held to be time-barred because Article 137 of the Limitation Act applied from the date of default, and no acknowledgement under section 18 was shown. A civil money decree passed after expiry of limitation did not revive limitation or amount to acknowledgement of debt, and section 9 cannot be used as a recovery mechanism based only on a decree. Refusal of delivery of the demand notice was not accepted as deemed service, and photocopies of the envelope were insufficient proof of valid delivery under the Code and Rules. The insolvency petition was therefore not fit for admission.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was barred by limitation and whether a civil decree for money recovery saved limitation; (ii) Whether refusal of delivery of the demand notice could be treated as deemed delivery for the purpose of section 8 of the Code; (iii) Whether photocopies of the envelope said to contain the demand notice could be treated as valid proof of delivery.

Issue (i): Whether the application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was barred by limitation and whether a civil decree for money recovery saved limitation.

Analysis: The default had occurred more than four years before the filing of the application. Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to applications under section 9 of the Code, and the right to sue accrues on default. No material showed acknowledgement of debt within the meaning of section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The civil decree passed after expiry of limitation did not shift forward the date of default and could not be treated as an acknowledgement of debt. A proceeding under section 9 cannot be founded solely on a money decree, since insolvency proceedings are meant for resolution and not for recovery.

Conclusion: The application was barred by limitation and the decree did not save limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether refusal of delivery of the demand notice could be treated as deemed delivery for the purpose of section 8 of the Code.

Analysis: Rule 5(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 requires effective delivery of the demand notice. In insolvency proceedings, there is no presumption of delivery merely because an envelope is shown as refused, and the material relied upon did not satisfactorily establish service.

Conclusion: Refusal of delivery could not be accepted as deemed delivery for the purpose of section 8 of the Code.

Issue (iii): Whether photocopies of the envelope said to contain the demand notice could be treated as valid proof of delivery.

Analysis: The original envelope was not produced, and the photocopy was insufficient to prove valid service of the demand notice in the manner required under the Code and the Rules.

Conclusion: The photocopies were not accepted as valid proof of delivery.

Final Conclusion: The operational creditor failed to establish a timely and properly served section 9 claim, so the insolvency petition was not fit for admission.

Ratio Decidendi: An application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 cannot be admitted when it is barred by limitation and the statutory demand notice is not shown to have been effectively served in accordance with the Code and the Rules.

---